Monday, February 1, 2010

Write That Down #11

This may be on of the most controversial post I've ever written for this category, but if you've read this blog enough times before, then you know that I don't give a damn. For I don't call it like I see it,...I call it like it is.

Have you ever noticed how when a debate over a certain matter arises, those who are against it are totally "anti-" while those who support that thing considered bad are more open to giving the indiviual their God-ordained right to choose? With that being said, as the debate over barebacking wages on (mainly in the gay porn industry), I've come to realize this:

The sides in the debate over barebacking should not be worded as "anti-barebacking" and "pro-barebacking". Instead, the sides should be worded like those in the debate over abortion, "anti-" and "pro-CHOICE".

The term "pro-choice" is one I have never really heard of in the barebacking debate. In the debate we usually only hear of "so-and-so is against..." and "so-and-so supports...". But the truth is people who say they are against barebacking while I don't fault their good intentions, I feel coming at people with an attitude like you're the Sex God therefore justified in policing their bedrooms is not the way. Meanwhile those who are thought to be pro-barebacking or in support of it, like myself (who has admitted to both safer-sex and barebacking) - usually don't have the attitude of how barebacking is the only way to go. Therefore, to say we're "pro-barebacking" is the wrong wording for our stand. Instead, we are more "pro-choice", for we believe in leaving the choice up to the individual by saying to them, "If you want to use a condom - fine, if not - that's fine as well". My feeling has always been that as long as whatever choice you make, both you and your partner(s) are well informed of the risks regarding whichever choice you make, mainly because of who you are making those choices with. So when you are well informed, you are FREE TO BE YOUR SEXUAL YOU.

6 comments:

Sorry, Tre- I know you think this is "how it is," rather than "how you see it," but, frankly, I think that you're just plain wrong about this. If we lived in a fully libertarian society (God forbid) where everybody's choices only had consequences for themselves, it might be reasonable to say that people could take any risk they wish to. But we don't. Even without national healthcare, the fact remains that a huge portion- well over %50- of the cost of HIV and AIDS-related care is picked up by the government and non-profit organizations. Even those positive people who have comprehensive insurance are costing other people money in the form of increased premiums. Likewise, if and when the time comes that a positive person needs to leave the workforce, disability is also paid for by the government- which means through tax dollars, which means, BY ALL OF US.

That's just the economic burden of people pretending this is their "choice." It doesn't take into consideration the psychic burden- the worrying and grief (and often, loss of time) it causes loved ones; the threat of passing the disease on to people who have not made that "choice"; the resources it diverts from people who became infected at a time when the causes of the disease were less well known and they legitimately held less responsibility for its prevention.

We do not live in a completely libertarian country, obviously. We have seat belt and helmet laws. We set speed limits and arrest people for DWI. We tax cigarettes highly, make most medications available only through prescription, fund the EPA and FDA, and do numerous things in this country that limit people's "choices" in the name of their own protection, all because risk is spread across a population and it's only fair to mitigate against it. To give people the completely wrongheaded and self-centered idea that practicing unsafe sex is simply a matter of "choice" ignores the fact that that choice affects all of us.

I agree with you entirely, and I actually disagree (in part) with Christopher above.

Unprotected sex does only impact me, and those who I have sex with. Yes, there are social implications, but these are, again, down to personal choice. If we live in a society where everyone chooses to have unprotected sex, then the financial burden of that society rides with us too.

That being said, I do have difficulty with your second opening sentence""For I don't call it like I see it,...I call it like it is."

I know what you mean, and I know what you're getting at, and I value you and your opinion because of what you are getting at... but that sentence isn't factually correct. You call it the way you know it is. That doesn't mean it's always like it is... because it's a product of your values which produces it. Suicide bombings, to me are wrong. I see it as wrong. There are people in the world who disagree with me. Fact is, the world isn't nearly as clean cut as either of us want it to be.

You brought statistics into your argument. That right there already has me with 1 deaf ear to what you have to say, because I am not one with the naivete it takes to believe in statistics.

You should know by now that statistics are born from people with an agenda, whether it be to strike fear in us, or make us feel we are less powerful than we are. For instance, do you really believe that gays are ONLY 10% of the population? If you do, then you are the gays that those who made up that statistic are aiming for, because to believe we are such a small part would make you believe that we don't have a voice. I say this to remind you of your comment about how much of a crunch taking care of those with HIV/AIDS puts on healthcare. Plain and simply, you're so busy buying the government's statistics and excuse of how they can't do more, that you are doing the very thing I said in my post. YOU ARE TRYING TO POLICE PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS - STAY OUT!

I am not saying people should be careless, but they should be free to choose. After all, as much as you may hate to hear it, the fact I need to make is that IT IS UNNATURAL FOR THERE TO BE A BARRIER BETWEEN A MAN'S PENIS AND THE INSIDE OF THE CONSETING ADULT HE IS HAVING SEX WITH. The circumstances of the present world is why we need to consider a barrier. So you can't really fault a man who wants to go bare, just as I don't fault you for wanting to always wear a condom. There are sometimes when the right to choose should be stopped, but because of man's natural disdain for a barrier on his penis, POLICE YOUR BEDROOM WHILE I POLICE MINE.

It is one thing to say "I don't trust polls," but it is quite another to say you don't trust numbers at all. Money is money- it goes somewhere and comes from somewhere. There is a budget process in the USA every year. It's not a "statistic"- it's a balance sheet, the same as the statement you presumably get every month from your bank.

Your argument is like a fundamentalist arguing creationism in the face of all scientific evidence. It shows that you are adapting reality to fit your viewpoint rather than letting reality influence your viewpoint.

Off the top of my head, I count eleven HIV positive people in treatment among my friends (that I know of.) You know how many are paying for their treatment completely out of pocket? Not one. Where exactly do you think the money is coming from? The AIDS Fairy?

It's unnatural for a man's penis to have a barrier on it, huh? I guess that means that there shouldn't be any consequences for the heteros who accidentally get pregnant and then, again, rely on others to pay for their children's lives. What you are advocating is not "choice"- it's a complete abnegation of responsibility. The fact that you haven't actually responded to the points I made about how society polices our actions in numerous ways shows again that you are not arguing based on reason- you're arguing out of pure stubbornness. I ask again- do you think drunk driving should be illegal? How about riding a motorcycle without a helmet?

You have major issues. To dare argue my saying that it's unnatural for a man's penis to have a barrier on it shows you to extremely robotic in your thinking. I THINK FOR MYSELF. I TAKE NOTE OF THE WORLD AROUND ME, AND THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, AND MAKE MY ASSESSMENT. People tell you to do something, while it may make some degree of sense, you do it without taking note of EVERYTHING involved.

And the reason I haven't responded to your so-called "points" is partly out of stubbornness, because I am an Aries, that is what we do. The other part of it is because plain and simply, THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Because driving a car and riding motorcycles are not actions that started since the beginning of mankind. SEX IS. In fact, it how mankind began. And if you are to make a proper argument, you need to stop playing bobble-head doll to intrusive politicians with so little life of their own that they intrude upon the private going on of others, and TAKE NOTE OF THE HISTORY OF MANKIND AND HOW IT CAME TO BE.

With all that said, once I admitted to how we should not be careless, if you weren't so busy being argumentive, you would have took note of that PLUS the undeniable fact of man's natural disdain for a barrier and left this alone. As I am moving on.

I HIGHLY respect those willing to stand behind their comments with a name. So if you use "Anonymous" on a viewpoint that challenges mine, IT WILL BE DELETED. For your cowardice to not show yourself makes your viewpoint and you irrelevant.